I agree that beneficial means beneficial.
But you keep evading the point that if they are not immediately beneficial they will be lost due to the 50% chance of survival at each procreation.
Don't you have any family? Any aunts, uncles, cousins, children? Can't you see specific characteristics survive from one generation to another?
How many times do I have to post how a new mutation dissappears as I have done in post#683 and 749 before you evolutionists will address it? How many posts before you evolutionists stop ignoring it?
The gene is the new function (protein) and it is either beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. No additional regulatory mechanism is necessary at this point.
You really blew it on that one! Let me show you what you need to make one protein Here's the first step:
machinery to start the process
Here's the next step:
Here's the details of how it happens from those rabid right wing creationists at UC Berkeley:
Berkeley scientists have obtained the first good picture of a major chunk of the machinery that turns genes on and off.
With the help of electron microscopy and a relatively new technique called single particle image analysis, the researchers reconstructed a three-dimensional picture of the heart of the machine -- the part that binds to DNA and starts the process of gene transcription.
The picture shows for the first time how the proteins are arranged, and gives clues to the inner workings of the machinery that transcribes genes -- the complex of proteins that latches onto and copies DNA into an RNA blueprint for building proteins.
...
The entire machine that transcribes a gene is composed of perhaps 50 proteins, including RNA polymerase, the enzyme that converts DNA code into RNA code. A crew of transcription factors grabs hold of the DNA just above the gene at a site called the core promoter, while associated activators bind to enhancer regions farther upstream of the gene to rev up transcription.
Working as a tightly knit machine, these proteins transcribe a single gene into messenger RNA. The messenger RNA wends its way out of the nucleus to the factories that produce proteins, where it serves as a blueprint for production of a specific protein.
From: UC Berkeley - First Pictures of Transcription Machine
No one has postulated that duplicate genes are the "engines of evolution" - just one "engine" of many. And not similar function - exactly the same function. Until a mutation occurs in one of the duplicated genes.
The only other alternative is the creation of a completely new gene by random chance. Aside from the problem of getting it to do something as I have shown above, there is the little problem of the almost infinite amount of tries needed to make a new gene. A fairly small gene is some 300 DNA codons long and each codon can contain one of 20 amino acids. The chances of this occurring are 20^300 or one chance divided by a 1 with 120 zeros behind it. It could have happened once or twice in 4 billion years, but not the hundreds of thousands of times necessary for evolution to have produced the millions of different species living today.
Haven't we seen totally new genes come into being in just this way? Yes, we have. Go look at the nylon eating bacteria again for a documented example.
Jeez, you did not even bother to read the article! It clearly states that it was a mutation on an existing gene which took away the ability of the bacteria to eat carbohydrates!
Maybe if you really look at what is going on in science instead of reading the nonsense spewed by Gould, Dawkins and TalkOrigins, you would see that my position is correct.